Benefits: Fraud

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment has been made of the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calling for reform of the tax and benefit system to move people from illegal jobs into legitimate work to reduce benefit fraud.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The Government welcome the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, Need not greed. It is important for Government to strike the right balance between enforcing rules against illegal working to preserve the integrity of the welfare system, while at the same time ensuring that the system provides the right incentives for people to move from welfare into legal forms of work. The Government will therefore consider the findings in this report to inform future policy development. Reforms to the tax and benefit system by this Government have already improved substantially incentives for people to move from welfare and into work. Since 1997, more than 2 million more people are in legal work, and the UK employment rate is among the highest in the G7.

Ministry of Defence: Joint Personnel Administration System

Lord Garden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements they have made for compensating members of the Royal Air Force who have not received correct payments on time since the introduction of the joint personnel administration system.

Lord Drayson: Any claims for compensation as a result of incorrect payments following the introduction of the JPA system will be considered in accordance with government accounting procedures. The general principle adopted is that the individual may be recompensed where it can be shown that a financial loss has occurred through maladministration.

NHS: Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin

Lord Turnberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the cost to the Department of Health of supplying the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin to National Health Service doctors for each of the years 2001 to 2005.

Lord Warner: The annual cost of the Department of Health's central contract to purchase copies of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin for each of the past five years is as follows.
	
		
			 Financial Year Cost 
			 2001–02 £1.350 million 
			 2002–03 £1.419 million 
			 2003–04 £1.435 million 
			 2004–05 £1.435 million 
			 2005–06 £1.435 million

Official Travel: Carbon Emission Offsets

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 16 June (WA 49), for each journey undertaken by the Government Car and Despatch Agency to Brussels in the past three years what was (a) the reason for the trip; (b) the job title of each official undertaking the trip; (c) the officials or representatives met while in Brussels; and (d) the cost of each trip.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) provides a range of services, including secure mail screening, to Government and the wider public sector. The director of government mail, the secure mail screening manager and a mail screening officer attended the Airport, Port and Transport Security Expo on 23 June 2005. The equipment used at airports and ports to screen luggage and other items is very similar to that used for mail screening and is provided by the same suppliers. The three officials from GCDA went to the expo to keep abreast of the latest technological developments. The officials from GCDA did not meet any officials or representatives from any other Government nor from the European Union. The total cost of the visit was £336.89.

Parole Board

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Parole Board has sufficient resources to enable its members to interview each prisoner before decisions are taken on whether the prisoner should be released.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In the past, a member of the board—who was not on the panel for making the release decision in the particular case—used to interview all offenders before consideration of release. However, independent research showed this to represent little added value and funding was targeted to those cases where there were particular issues that an interview might resolve. The Government believe this to be adequate, but have undertaken to look at any new proposals in respect of interviews that the board may make. In addition, life sentence prisoners who have completed their tariff have a statutory right to have their ongoing detention reviewed by an oral hearing of the Parole Board. The board is funded for such hearings. Overall, there has been a significant increase in resources provided to the board.

Roads: Improvements

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the latest estimate of the total cost of the local road repair backlog; and whether they are on track to deliver their target of eliminating that backlog by 2010.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The latest firm estimate of the backlog in street lighting is £1.65 billion, as reported to the Transport Select Committee in June 2004.
	For carriageways, footways and structures, we are actively seeking better information from local authorities and elsewhere. All local highway authorities have been encouraged to produce asset management plans for their roads. These will consist of inventories of stock, its existing condition, and target condition based upon desired service levels. These asset management plans, together with better information on the most effective remedial work and its costs, will allow more accurate estimates to be made of the funding required.
	The national road maintenance condition survey for 2005 showed that the interim target of halting carriageway deterioration by 2004 had been well achieved. There has been a significant improvement in road conditions in England since 2000, and the Government consider that they are still on track to meet the target of eliminating local highway maintenance backlogs by 2010–11.

Royal Prerogative

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 13 June (WA 13), whether they will place in the Library of the House any guidance they have issued on the use of prerogative powers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government have not issued any guidance on the use of prerogative powers. Policy on the Royal Prerogative was set out in July 2004 in the Government's response to the Commons Public Administration Committee's report, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament. It was also set out in relation to the deployment of the Armed Forces in the Government's memorandum to the Lords Constitution Committee's current inquiry.

Shellfish

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the risks associated with the use of cooked, washed and crushed shells from crabs and lobsters as fertiliser; and
	What is the most (a) sustainable, and (b) cost-effective way of dealing with the waste constituted by crab and lobster shells; and
	Whether they believe that the animal protein contained in scallop shells poses a health risk; and whether scallop shells should continue to be covered by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy directive.

Lord Rooker: Although animal protein contained in scallop shells does not in itself carry a risk of transmitting transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) to animals, under Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001, its feeding to ruminant animals (such as cattle, goats or sheep) is prohibited to address the possibility of its masking the presence of mammalian material which may carry a TSE risk.
	Scallop shells (excluding animal protein) are not covered by the TSE regulation but as an animal by-product (ABP), shells from shellfish (including scallops, crabs and lobsters) must be disposed of in accordance with the animal by-products Regulation (EC) No.1774/2002, which lays down the rules on the use, treatment, handling and disposal of ABPs in order to protect public and animal health. Shells which are derived from raw shellfish must be recovered or disposed of in certain ways, for example by incineration, rendering, or processed in an in-vessel composting or biogas plant. Although shells derived from cooked shellfish can go for disposal to landfill, in accordance with the EU landfill directive, this is the least sustainable option. It is a commercial matter for those disposing of such waste to decide which is the most cost effective means.
	Shells from shellfish can also be used to produce organic fertiliser and soil improvers subject to the rules contained in Commission Regulation 181/2006, which allows certain categories of ABPs, after being processed, to be used as organic fertiliser or soil improvers. This was formulated in consideration of a number of scientific opinions from the relevant EU scientific committee to ensure there was minimal risk to public and animal health. These are available on the following website: www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/outcome–en.html.
	Organic fertilisers and soil improvers that are still considered to be waste may be spread to land in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended). Paragraph 7A of Schedule 3 to the 1994 regulations allows shells from shellfish processing to be spread to land for agricultural benefit, or ecological improvement, subject to certain conditions. The Environment Agency needs to be notified of the intention to use the exemption.

Taxation: Capital Gains Tax

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the absence of behavioural change, how much additional revenue the Exchequer would receive if the exemption on disposal of a taxpayer's only or main residence were limited to the first (a) £100,000; (b) £250,000; or (c) £500,000 of chargeable capital gains.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The total estimated cost on an accruals basis of the exemption from tax of gains arising from disposal of only or main residence, for individuals and trusts in 2004–05 and 2005–06, can be found in table A3.1 of the Budget Report 2006.
	The total estimated yield for 2006-07 if the exemption on disposal of a taxpayer's only or main residence were limited to the first (i) £100,000, (ii) £250,000 and (iii) £500,000 of chargeable capital gains are set out in the table.
	
		
			  
			 Limit of Exemption £100,000 £250,000 £500,000 
			 Additional revenue(accruals) 2006–07 £3 billion £750 million £250 million 
		
	
	The figures are consistent with the assumptions made in Budget 2006 on future asset prices, and do not take into account the likely taxpayer behavioural responses to the tax change. The estimates ignore the impact on other gains that would be brought into charge by these changes.

Taxation: Stamp Duty

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the absence of behavioural change, what would be the annual cost to the Exchequer of (a) abolishing lower rates of stamp duty on residential property transactions while retaining stamp duty at 4 per cent on transactions over £500,000; and (b) abolishing the 1 per cent rate of stamp duty on residential property transactions while leaving other rates and thresholds unchanged.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: If all lower rates of stamp duty on residential transactions were abolished and only the 4 per cent rate for residential transactions over £500,000 was retained, the cost for 2007-08 is estimated at £4.3 billion. If the 1 per cent rate of stamp duty for residential transactions between £125,001 and £250,000 was abolished, the cost for 2007-08 is estimated at £1 billion.

World Cup: Policing

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the level of co-operation between British and German police personnel in supervising the behaviour of fans at World Cup matches has been satisfactory; and, if so, whether they propose to develop this co-operation in the future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Co-operation with the German authorities and police is excellent at every level. The Government intend to continue their policy of seeking to work closely with the host authorities for future tournaments.